Analysing the root cause of agrarian problems and
those facing the poor peasants and agricultural labourers, Comrade Ghosh
elaborately discussed in this address to the delegates of the Twelfth West
Bengal State Conference of the All India Krishak O Khetmazur Sangathan, how in a
backward country like India, capitalism, and capitalist land relation stand in
the way of modernizing and mechanizing agriculture and creating alternative
employment opportunities without which agrarian problems cannot be solved and
rural uplift achieved. At the same time he brought home that land reforms by
themselves — projected as the panacea to all the ills of peasants' life by the
self-styled Marxist parties in this country — cannot bring to an end the
problems and abject misery of peasants, and how the question of alleviating
their plight, of solving the burning problems of their lives is inextricably
linked up with the task of anti-capitalist socialist revolution. He charted the
way for building the truly revolutionary peasant movement to achieve the goal of
emancipation.

Comrades,

You requested me to address this concluding session of the
three-day long Delegates Conference of the Krishak O Khetmajur Federation[1] . You are assembled here
as delegates from different villages, different police station areas, different
parts of this district of Birbhum[2]
and other various districts of West Bengal. Many of you, those present here, are
aware that more than seventyfive out of one hundred of India's population live
in the villages. These millions of common people in rural areas have a thousand
and one problems in life. But the issue I need to point out to you in the first
place is that the problem of getting jobs for the whole year for every able
peasant is the one which comes foremost among all the problems of rural life
today. Providing jobs for the rural poor throughout the year, it may be farming
the land or any other type, so that as wage of their work their minimum income
is such that they can live a healthy social life, which means, in plain terms,
they could make both ends meet all through the year, feeding their children,
getting them medicine at times of illness, at least giving them a minimum of
education which ought to be given to all — just this stands out today as the
main problem facing the rural life.

You should know, recovery of benam[3] lands grabbed by jotedars[4] , making fallow lands
cultivable, and distributing lands vested in the government among agricultural
labourers, landless and poor peasants on the principle of equitable distribution
— all this is vital no doubt, but is not the main problem. Because, considering
the minimum amount of land that needs to be allotted to a family for its
sustenance and meeting the other necessary expenses throughout the year, there
is dearth of that quantum of land needed for distribution among the whole
population in the villages today in India. This means, the character of today's
rural problem is not such that by simply carrying out the task of distributing
land to the rural masses we can put an end to the destitution of agricultural
labourers, landless and poor peasants in the villages. You have to particularly
bear this in mind with respect to peasant movements.

Distribution of recovered benam lands, vested lands and fallow
lands made cultivable among peasants is an important task of peasant movement

It does not mean however that by saying this I am disregarding the need or am
trying to underplay the importance of effecting the one task of peasant movement
which calls for recovering and distributing among agricultural labourers,
landless and poor peasants all benam lands above ceiling limits which are
illegally kept under occupation by big jotedars or former zemindars<[5] , or allotting those lands
which are vested in government but have been appropriated by others, depriving
agricultural labourers, landless and poor peasants through deceit in connivance
with government officials. I maintain, on the contrary, that recovering vested
and benam lands, making fallow lands arable, and distributing all these lands
among agricultural labourers, landless and poor peasants are indeed an important
task of your peasant movement. All I need to emphasize is that even if you did
allot all recovered vested and benam lands and all the fallow lands made arable
to agricultural labourers, poor and landless peasants, you just could not give
to most of them that minimum of land with which they can just make ends meet for
a peasant family. It is because, as we had calculated it at an all-India
conference some twenty years ago, the minimum land with which a peasant family
could make both ends meet, or what is called an economic holding, works out to
be 12 bighas[6]
— by now the figure must come up to 15 bighas, considering the ever increasing
price-level till now. But even this I am leaving aside. Say, all benam lands of
the country are recovered, all fallow lands made cultivable, and these along
with all the vested lands are distributed equally. Even so, considering all
available lands and the total population engaged in rural economy, that is, the
total population of agricultural labourers, landless and poor peasants taken
into account, it is hardly possible to allot even 7 to 9 bighas of land to each
of the families of even half of this population of India — although in my
estimation this size of land does not make the holding economic today. In any
case, it means, the other half of people will not be recipient of any land at
all. As a result, even after allotting all these lands, so many in the villages
will have been left unemployed, or will be going without job the year round.
Neither could you give them land, nor are they getting jobs. What happens then ?
If they do not get any job in the village, they have to leave home and hearth
and move to the town anyway. Many village people are thus crowding towns in
search of jobs as wage-labourers. There too they are turning destitutes. Some
may be working as porters, who could anyhow make it. Or, some such means they
take to and live on streetsides in subhuman existence. After some time, many go
back to their village home and swell the ranks of the rural unemployed and
semi-employed. Thus, distributing land cannot in itself save the peasant.

Problem of peasants cannot be solved only through distribution of recovered
benam and vested lands and fallow lands turned arable

Examining the issue from another angle will also help you grasp that even by
distributing the requisite land among peasants the problems of the agricultural
labourers, landless and poor peasants cannot be solved. In the first place,
because, as I did point it out earlier, carrying out the task of land
distribution will not make land available to all agricultural labourers,
landless and poor peasants. Secondly, those getting land cannot hold on to it.
Because, as you know, members in each family and in society keep on increasing
in numbers but land does not grow in size. Land remains as it is. There is a
finite limit to available land, like there is a limit to enhancing land's
productivity. Whereas, the number of members in each family keeps on increasing.
Say, you are a peasant and you have got nine bighas of land. You thought, you
could manage your household with this. Then, say, five children are born to you.
Or, if you went by government's prescribed norm, you had then, say, three
children. Now divide your land among the three. If one or two of the issues are
female, even then your land will have to be divided equally among the three.
Just because, in India at present sons and daughters have equal right to
parental property. It may be that women in many families, weighed down by
age-old convention as they are, do not assert their claim. But when awareness
dawns on them, women will claim their due shares. Anyway, nine bighas divided
equally among three leave three bighas to each as share. Afterwards, if these
three get married and each has three issues then the share of each will be one
bigha of land. To a family it hardly makes a difference whether it owns or does
not own a bigha of land.

Secondly, in the case of a poor peasant having land of the measure of a bigha
is of little use. Even if a land of three bighas is allotted to every family, it
will not turn out to be really effective. Because, even if a poor peasant is
allotted that amount of land, he will be forced to sell it out the next year. He
cannot retain it simply because he cannot manage his household with a land of
three bighas. As a result, the land will get sold up to buyers who have the
money for it. Indeed this way most of the poor and lower-middle peasants have
been dispossessed of their lands. Just think how the lands which these poor and
lower-middle peasants had in possession till twenty years back went out of their
hands. The elderly among you are aware that during the famine of fifty[7] in Bengal poor
and lower-middle peasants had to sell out many lands. At that time, jotedars and
moneylenders took advantage of the extreme privation of the poverty-stricken
peasants to cheat them, grabbing their lands virtually at no price. Again, as
the peasants were incapable of repaying the loans they had taken by mortgaging
their lands at times of dire want, or when under duress, times of illness, or to
meet expenses at times of family ceremonies, they could not recover their lands
and were thus dispossessed of all the many lands of theirs. Therefore, even if
the peasants received two or, say, three bighas of land, could that solve the
problems of their lives ? Could that either nullify the grounds for which
peasants and agricultural labourers are waging struggles ? Can a landless
peasant hold on to two or three bighas of land he might be allotted ? If the
able sons in the family have no alternative employment and the peasant cannot
add more land to his possession of land with savings from his sons' earnings and
maintain the farming adequately, he will be forced again to mortgage his land at
times of want, illness, ceremonies, or to sell it out and become the landless
peasant he was before. This is an inevitable destiny in the capitalist rural
economy in a backward country like ours, and it is thus that the ranks of
agricultural labourers and landless peasants are swelling by the day at growing
rates.

Whereas, many in this country believe that the problem could be resolved by
enacting a law to bar sale of land by poor peasants. What they fail to realize
is that, let alone bring benefit to the poor peasant, such legal bars to the
sale of land in the capitalist system will hamper the agricultural production
itself. Because a land of two or three bighas does not make an economic holding
for a family, that is, a holding not adequate as a means for subsistence, the
peasant cannot farm this land the way it should be. It may be that at times he
will be even circumscribed to leave the land uncultivated. In that event, as a
consequence, a food crisis will break out in the country, agricultural
production will get hampered, and its retrograde effect will have repercussions
on the entire national economy. For the sake of economy itself in the present
capitalist set-up, legal bar to sale and purchase of land is not viable
therefore. Although, it has been suggested by many that following the example of
socialist countries purchase of land by individual owners be barred in the
present circumstance and the state instead buy these lands. But what will the
state do after buying these lands ? The government has to undertake state
farming in that event to cultivate these lands. Today it is not possible that
the government in a backward capitalist country like ours will buy all these
lands and set up large-scale state farms to cultivate these lands as there is no
way then to provide alternative employment to the millions of peasants who will
be thrown unemployed if mechanization is introduced in agriculture in this
country at the state's initiative.

The urban areas are already teeming with the army of the unemployed and
semi-employed, their numbers soaring up at increasing rates. Therefore, any
attempts to mechanize agriculture in the present condition, that is, to
modernize agriculture with tractor-machines will throw millions in the villages
out of employment at a single stroke. The urban unemployed in hundreds of
thousands added to the surplus millions in agriculture thus thrown unemployed
will create a situation under whose weight this capitalist system will be on the
verge of collapse. With the unemployment problem already acute and ever more
aggravating, capitalism cannot undertake this task for the sake of its own
survival. If modern tractor-machines are introduced in the land to which
thousands of agricultural labourers, sharecroppers and poor peasants in the
village remain somehow attached — maybe like half-dead souls subsisting somehow
on this land — they will all become surplus labour. In a country where
unemployment is constantly proliferating even before introduction of
tractor-machines has begun in land farming, and these peasants cannot be given
employment in mills and factories, where the situation is such that even those
employed in the industries are getting retrenched or laid off and so many
factories are closing down, people from villages are flocking into towns because
they have no employment scope in the countryside, capitalism can by no means
somehow maintain its existence if attempts are made for modernization of
agriculture with tractor-machines. This is why, in their bid to extend the lease
of life of this moribund, reactionary capitalist system as long as they can, the
ruling bourgeoisie are administering a host of palliatives like Green
Revolution, Japanese way of cultivation, Tai-Chung, IR-8, and so forth. So many
diverse attempts are going on with purport to work magic with how many different
crops could be grown and how much more could be harvested in piecemeal lands by
various plannings. And every year crores[8] of rupees are being spent for all this.
However, they cannot pluck the courage to come up with plans for big land
farming or state farming with tractor-machines. Therefore, with the capitalist
economic order and capitalist state machine remaining in place, this road cannot
lead to the solution of the problem. From this angle too it can be seen that the
question of completing the task of the half-baked agrarian revolution in our
country is indispensably interwoven with the task of accomplishing
anti-capitalist socialist revolution.

From this discussion you could then see that simply by distributing land the
sufferings in the rural life cannot be ended and the peasant cannot survive
unless provisions of employment could be made for each able individual of the
poor peasant families in the villages. To provide employment is the basic issue
confronting the rural life today, whether by allotment of enough lands, or by
other means. Had there been provision of job all through the year for every
individual in the village to earn sufficient wages, their privation would not
have reached the present dimension in that event. In my consideration, the
minimum wage prescribed by the present bourgeois government of India for
industrial workers in some sectors has not been fixed on the principle of social
justice. Had it been so, the prescribed wage would have been much higher on
account of today's ever rising price-level. Let us leave aside even this. If
every able individual in a family, which does not own, say, two bighas of land,
could be given employment round the year carrying a salary of rupees two hundred
and fifty to three hundred, his distress would not have been so much acute. On
the other hand, a family owning even ten to twelve bighas of land but having
eight to ten members, who have no alternative employment, cannot arrange for two
square meals all through the year, let alone meet expenses for medical
treatment, or for education. It does not mean however, and I emphasized it
earlier too, that you have no need to build movements to recover and distribute
all those lands which are either held in benam, or are vested lands not allotted
properly, or are lands lying fallow and not made cultivable. Nor do I mean to
underplay its importance in the present phase of peasant movement. These
movements are necessary to build up as it will mitigate to a certain extent the
sorrows and sufferings and the rural people's purchasing capacity will also
improve, even if by a whit. But my point is that this will not solve the basic
problem.

Basic issue of rural life today is round-the-year employment provision for
every able individual by opening the road to unhindered industrialization

So, no doubt, distribution of recovered benam lands, equitable redistribution
of vested lands and proper allotment of arable lands previously fallow is an
important issue of peasant movement but is not its central and pivotal issue.
The pivotal issue of peasant movement in today's context is to develop the rural
economy through mechanization and modernization of agriculture and to open up
side by side the road to industrialization in order to provide employment to the
surplus population in the villages and the rural unemployed and semi-employed.
That is, to provide employment to all those of the village people who could not
be allotted land in the course of distribution of the requisite minimum lands to
agricultural labourers, landless and poor peasants in pursuit of a programme of
just and proper allotment of recovered benam lands, fallow lands made cultivable
and equitable redistribution of vested lands. Now the question is, how to
provide employment to every able individual in the village ? Who will provide ?
The only way to create such kind of employment is to open the road to continuous
industrialization. If factories and mills could be set up and development of
industries could go on unhindered, if, in other words, the road to full-scale
industrialization could be opened up, then attempts could alongside go on also
in agricultural economy for modernization and mechanization. Ancillary and
auxiliary industries in agricultural economy could start developing in the rural
areas making possible rapid growth of agricultural production. In that event, in
the industries that would come up in order to cater to the very need of
modernization and scientific development of agriculture, a section of all those
could be absorbed who will have been left over landless following allotment of
requisite minimum lands to other peasants. After this, those still left over
unemployed could be absorbed if industrial development could be carried on in
the neighbouring urban areas. With the situation so developed, no able
individuals in any of the families would be left unemployed, everybody would be
absorbed. In that event, whatever land a family might have, they will cultivate
it and whatever necessities cannot be fulfilled through that cultivation, for
that those in the family not engaging in cultivation will take on other
employments. Thus, with the earnings of all, agriculture will develop, its
mechanization and modernization can be made possible, agricultural production
will grow, the look of the village will radically change. Electricity will come
to the villages, roads will be built, schools, parks and hospitals will be set
up, there will be provisions for sports and games, cultural functions will be
held. If all these can be realized, then the present condition of the villages —
these haunts of ghosts, as others call it, where snakes and frogs inhabit, and
with them you also inhabit — this condition will change altogether. Then the
villages will become fit for human habitation. The incomparable gap between
rural and urban life will diminish. So, you see, for the uplift of villages in
order that they become fit for human habitation and to bring about mechanization
and modernization of agriculture, you have to solve the problem of the country's
industrial development and provision of employment to all able people. You
should bear in mind that the solution to this problem is inextricably linked
with the resolution of the crisis that stems inexorably from the Indian
capitalist state and capitalist economy. Unless you could establish the
socialist state and the socialist economic system by doing away with the present
capitalist state and capitalist economy, you cannot open the road to unhindered
industrial development in the country simply by effecting the programme of
distribution of land at present. And unless you can carry this out, no provision
can be made for employment to all able people in the villages, their poverty and
sufferings cannot be removed, uplift of the present condition of the villages
cannot be made possible.

Capitalist economic order stands today as main hurdle on road to unhindered
industrialization of the country

Because India's production system runs on capitalist production relations,
that is, production takes place here, whether in agriculture or in industry,
under control of private ownership with the motive of earning maximum profit,
there is no growth in industrial production, though the problem is not so acute
in agriculture. Private owners determine the prices of all industrial products
of mills and factories on the basis of maximum profit and, you know, the owners
sell these products in the market only when there are people who have the
purchasing power for buying these. But by far the majority of people in the
country do not have the capacity to buy the goods at these prices. Because, in
the first place, of the seventyfive to eighty per cent of the total population
of our country who are attached to land in the rural areas, fiftyone to
fiftyfive per cent, on an all-India count, are landless peasants and
agricultural labourers. This is a highly conservative estimate though. The
figure is much higher in reality. Of them, the majority are unemployed and
semi-employed, people who do not have employment round the year. Moreover, the
number of poor peasants, that is, those who own land from two or three bighas to
six or seven bighas, is fifteen per cent. Besides, the lower-middle peasants,
who own six or seven to fifteen bighas of land, also number around fifteen per
cent. It means, these eightyfive per cent of rural population are proletariat to
semi-proletariat — people who have no employment all through the year. They
cannot arrange for two full meals a day. These eightyfive per cent of the rural
population have almost zero purchasing power, or so we may say. To get some
clothings, the barest to wear, a few rags for the women, and two bare meals —
for this little just they are burning out. How could they afford to buy the
industrial commodities they need so badly ? Where is their purchasing power ?

Secondly, in the present economic system, taking into account the increased
price-levels of all articles of necessity, the real wages of all who work in
mills and factories in urban areas and get pay at the end of the month have gone
down much compared to what they earned previously. In terms of figures, of
course, that is, in terms of money, their wages have gone up comparatively. But
considering the case in terms of comparative price-levels, one could not deny,
unless one had his eyes and ears shut or had some ulterior motive and vested
interest, that the real wages have come down a lot. Comparing how one did manage
things earlier with an earning of a rupee a day, say, does he feel better off
now though his wage has gone up today ? No, he doesn't. This is because, in our
country the minimum wage a labourer is to be paid is not calculated by taking
into account the prices of all articles of necessity to live a life as befits
man. In this country, the minimum wage to be paid is fixed at a level at which
the labourer could have bare sustenance and gasp on to turn the wheels of the
owner's machine, he could seek out a shelter in a stenchy slum where one might
easily contract tuberculosis, managing there to live with a woman, and for that
matter his wife. The minimum of pay with which a labourer could manage to meet
the barest of necessity is reckoned as his wage, whereas the minimum wage should
have been determined in consonance with prices of essential commodities in order
that even a very ordinary family could meet the expenses of living a healthy
life, whereupon a nation could be built up. But in no capitalist country is this
norm followed to fix the wage of a labourer. The situation is even worse in our
country. As a result, the majority of people working in mills and factories of
our country do not own the capacity to buy necessary industrial commodities.
Besides, the millions of educated and semi-educated unemployed people crowding
the urban areas, whose numbers are swelling at galloping rates, do not have any
purchasing capacity at all. In this situation, naturally, because the majority
lack the purchasing capacity and whatever little capacity they have is
continuously on the decline, the market is squeezed in very much for the
industrial owners, each day this market gets squeezed in further. On the other,
no vast market abroad remains now to which the industrialists could export their
products for sale. Because, in the first place, following the emergence of the
world socialist system and the world socialist market after the second World War
parallel to the world capitalist system, the old traditional world capitalist
market has become squeezed in drastically. Moreover, the newly independent
Afro-Asian countries like India, for instance, whom the imperialists used to
exploit by establishing their absolute rule over them — with the emergence of
these countries as new competitors in the world capitalist market after they had
restructured their economies, breaking free from the imperialist chain and
colonial slavery following the second World War, the already squeezed-in world
capitalist market has suffered further squeezes, this in turn having led to
further aggravation of the crisis of the world capitalist market.

Thirdly, keep in mind, the character and nature of the crisis into which the
world capitalist market plunged at the end of the second World War is different
in essence from all its previous crises. Prior to the second World War, in all
of its crises at different periods, the world capitalist market enjoyed a
relative stability. But the nature of the present crisis is such that this
relative stability of the past exists no longer. The crisis has now turned into
a daily, an hourly affair. You can understand therefore that whereas the
advanced capitalist countries fought no less than two world wars among
themselves in their bid to capture the market even while the whole of the world
market was under their control, in the present condition of an extremely
squeezed-in world capitalist market the situation is no longer such that the
industrial owners of a backward capitalist country like India could at will sell
their industrial products in competition with the advanced capitalist countries.

Task of completing agrarian revolution in our country today is intertwined
with the task of accomplishing anti-capitalist socialist revolution

Thus, this being the condition of the world capitalist market, the Indian
capitalists do not have a market for even the small volume of production they
make, let alone go on increasing the production continuously. As I told you
before, this absence of the market does not mean however that the people of the
country don't have any needs, or that they don't want to buy. The type of
clothes most of the poor peasants of this land wear — don't they feel like
wearing better clothes, don't they wish to dress their children nicely ? Don't
they wish to provide good food for their children ? When somebody around eats
rasogollas[9] , doesn't a
poor peasant feel like eating rasogollas himself ? Doesn't he wish to give some
to his child ? They do, but what of it ? How could they have the means ? To be
relieved of the pangs of this inability they invoke their fate, call it the will
of God, or seek consolation in senseless utterings. Else, they try to satisfy
the child giving it a lump of sugar or gur[10]. How could they have the ability to buy good things ?
In this condition, how could the market within the country expand, how could the
development of industries go on unhindered ? How could new industries come up ?
On the contrary, not to speak of new industries coming up, even the existing
factories and mills are closing down, one after another, owing to the market
crisis of the capitalists under the present capitalist economic system. In the
given situation, whereas for a backward country like ours the need was to carry
on industrialization with ever new initiatives, it is the prevailing production
system in the country with its motive of earning maximum profit on the basis of
capitalist production relations, in a word, the prevailing capitalist economic
system which stands out as the main obstacle today to unhindered industrial
development. This in fact is giving rise to the crisis in industry despite ours
being a backward country. It can be seen, therefore, unless this obstacle can be
removed we cannot open the door of uninterrupted industrial development. And so
long as this task remains unfulfilled, we cannot complete the half-baked task of
agrarian revolution — which means modernizing and mechanizing agriculture and
providing employment to the entire rural population all through the year.

Therefore, to resolve the basic problem of the rural life and to bring about
unhindered industrial development, we need to put an end to the present economic
system, that is, the capitalist system, in a word — the system which runs on the
capitalist production relation with the object of earning maximum profit. Doing
away with the present capitalist state and the capitalist government, the rule
of the workers and peasants has to be established, and in the place of the
capitalist economic system the socialist economic system has to be established.
That is, in a word, in order to accomplish this very task you have to organize
anti-capitalist socialist revolution. But among the parties claiming to be
Marxist-Leninists, neither the CPI(M), nor the CPI, in fact no one except our
party, the SUCI, does openly stand for anti-capitalist revolution. What they say
is that the main struggle of the exploited masses of India, that is, of the
workers, peasants and the lower-middle class is against monopoly capital and
feudalism. Let us now see what this anti-monopoly capital, anti-feudal struggle
in a capitalist country like India means in real terms.

Bear it in mind, while it is the capitalist system as a whole from which
stems this exploitation, then those who put the onus of this capitalist class
exploitation as a whole on a handful of monopoly capitalists instead of taking
the stand for overthrowing the capitalist state and the capitalist order as a
whole are actually seeking to hide the character of the capitalist exploitation
itself. Because, monopoly capitalism is but a form of capitalism itself.
Therefore, if these people do not have the programme of anti-capitalist
revolution then all their task of fighting monopoly capital reduces into an
empty slogan, it is a fake slogan. Indira Gandhi[11] too delivers speeches against monopoly
capital. The Chhatra Parishad[12]
and the Youth Congress[13]
too raise voice against monopoly capital. They also try to shield the bourgeois
class as a whole from people's wrath by shifting the onus of all misdeeds of the
bourgeoisie as a whole on to the shoulders of a few monopoly capitalists. So,
flying the banner of Marxism, whether in the name of people's democratic
revolution or of national democratic revolution, if some people engage in
shielding the capitalist class as a whole, shifting the onus of bourgeois class
exploitation on to a handful of monopoly capitalists, their real motive must be
then like Indira Gandhi's.

Secondly, a little reflection also reveals that the slogan of these two
parties for fight against feudalism is no more than an empty talk. Whatever the
shape of capitalism in our country, howsoever backward it may be, but that
capitalist exploitation is the main feature and that the exploitation
perpetrated on all engaged in the agricultural economy is capitalist, too, is
brought out clearly by analysis of the agricultural economy in this country.
Just for the sake of argument if we accept, for the time being, that feudal
relations continue to hold in the agricultural economy of our country as
maintained in the analyses of these parties, even so, as every student of
Leninism knows, the moment the national bourgeoisie of this country usurped the
state power, India became a bourgeois state. Therefore, the main object of
revolution becomes overthrowing the bourgeois state, no matter whether feudalism
continues in agricultural economy or not.

Agricultural economy of our country is capitalist economy

Now let us see what is the nature of the agricultural economy of our country.
From the preceding discussion we could gather that about eightyfive per cent of
the rural population of our country have been reduced to the level of
proletariat and semi-proletariat — they have lost all their land holdings, or
are losing the same gradually. Adding to this the number of the somewhat
well-off middle peasants, that is, those who own land from above fifteen to
fifty or sixty bighas, who make up about ten or eleven per cent, it comes out
that in the hands of the remaining five or six per cent of the rural population
some fiftyfive to sixty per cent of the total lands of the country have become
concentrated. This feature that, on the one side, most of the lands of the
country have been concentrated in the hands of a few people, whereas, on the
other side, most of the rural people, that is, eightyfive per cent of the rural
population are reduced to the level of rural proletariat and semi-proletariat —
what is the reason that it became so? All with a modicum of knowledge of
economics will understand that this came about following the inexorable law of
the capitalist economy.

Secondly, you should realize and constantly bear in mind that it is the
capitalist state of India and the capitalist economic system which is the root
cause of the exploitation and oppression perpetrated on you. Whether in the
factories of the towns or in the lands of the villages, production is being
carried on everywhere on the basis of the capitalist production relation.
Everybody understands it easily that the character of the production relation as
the basis of production in the factories in the urban areas in our country is
the owner-wage labourer. In the rural economy, too, in this country this
character of production relation is basically that of the owner-wage labourer.
Though in India, as a backward country, the form of this owner-wage labourer
relation in the rural areas differs from place to place depending upon
specificities of localities and regions, peculiarities of the people, still its
basic character everywhere at present is that of the owner-wage labourer. In
some places the labourer is a monthly wage earner, in some other places he is a
daily wage labourer. It may be that in some places a section of the agricultural
labourers even own land from one to three bighas each. But they are wage
labourers. Some of them are paid the wage — part in money, part in food. Some
others receive a share of the crop in place of wage in money. In this country we
call this type of labourers share-croppers, maybe some of them even own land of
a bigha or two. But all these are only different forms of the same owner-wage
labourer relation, depending upon the specificities of a region and pecularities
of the people in a backward capitalist economy of today. Because, all of them
work as wage labourer in others' lands. And, this very relation of owner-wage
labourer in the sphere of production is called capitalist production relation.

Examining the issue from another angle also will help you realize that in the
rural economy in our country production takes place on the basis of the
capitalist relations. What is it we call capitalism ? The fundamental economic
law of capitalism is that, based on capitalist-wage labourer production
relation, capital grows by investment of capital — whether it is investment in
land or in industry — that is, to grow capital through production by investing
capital. In the capitalist system, the capitalists invest capital and produce
goods in mills and factories. By selling the goods in the market they come out
with profit which is the amount in excess over the invested capital. This profit
they garner by exploiting the worker, exploiting the labour-power of the worker,
depriving him of his due wage. This is what we call capitalism. Let us examine
now the character of our rural economy. Is it the character of the rural economy
today that like in the feudal system the owners of the lands produce mostly for
their own consumption and, to meet the other necessities of living, they sell
part of this produce in the local market as per the law of this local market ?
Or, whether the land owners produce in the lands with an eye on the demands of
the national market ? Moreover, is the price of the agricultural produce in the
village fixed in terms of the law of the local market, or is the agricultural
commodity transformed into commodity of the national market today ? Turn on the
radio set and you can listen to that all the agricultural produce is being
controlled today by the share market, wholesale market and the stock exchange.
The land owners are selling their produce in the market as per the prices fixed
by them and they are increasing their capital thereby. Thus, today, the land too
is transformed into a means or instrument of capital investment like the factory
is. Thus, it is seen, that through investment of capital in the land capital is
growing. Besides, I pointed it out earlier, the production of agricultural
commodity by land owners through investment in land also takes place on the
basis of the owner-wage labourer relation, that is, on the capitalist production
relation itself — whatever its form depending upon the specificities and
pecularities of regions and people.

Therefore, all these features — the concentration of most of the lands in the
hands of a few, the continuous decline of most of the village people to the
level of the proletariat and semi-proletariat, the transformation of the land
into a means of capital investment, agricultural production taking place on the
basis of owner-wage labourer relation and, above all, the transformation of the
agricultural produce into commodities of the national market — they go to
demonstrate that the Indian agricultural economy is wholly capitalist economy.
However backward and underdeveloped Indian capitalism is, except as hangover of
feudal habits, conduct and behaviour in the cultural life of the country and in
the rural relationships, nowhere in land relation or in agricultural production
relation does feudal relation linger to be present. The capitalist agricultural
production relation has taken its place, whatever may be its form on account of
differences in the specificities and peculiarities of regions and people, and
trade and commerce in agricultural commodity too run according to the laws of
the capitalist national market.

However, on the grounds that farming in our country is not carried out with
tractor-machines, or that there are the hangovers of old feudal habits and
practices in the Indian cultural life and in the rural relations, those who deny
that the agricultural economy of our country is capitalist economy actually
display utter ignorance of how capitalism makes inroads into agricultural
economy in a backward country in this era of imperialism and proletarian
revolution. In the eighteenth century, when capitalism was progressive, world
revolution was in the stage of capitalist revolution, capitalism was making
strides through uncompromising struggle against religion, on the one hand, and
the feudal system, on the other hand, a revolutionary transformation of
production and industrialization on extensive scales was taking place on the
basis of capitalist relation itself, capitalism made inroads into agriculture
with tractor-machines for supply of raw materials to meet the requirements of
industrialization and create surplus labour out of the majority of the village
people for absorption in the industries. But in this era of imperialism and
proletarian revolution, when capitalism has not only turned reactionary but is
in its third intensive phase of world market crisis and let alone creation of
employment made possible through setting up new industries, production in the
existing industries is coming down or has to be closed down because of absence
of the market and this is leading to further aggravation of the unemployment
problem, capitalism can no longer effect modernization and mechanization of
agriculture with tractor-machines in its own interest.

On the grounds that in the interest of capitalism itself the capitalists
cannot go about modernizing agriculture with tractor-machines, it cannot however
be concluded that the rural economy in our country is not capitalist economy. It
is by breaking the feudal relation that capitalism is making inroads into this
backward or underdeveloped economy. In its own interest, however, capitalism is
engaging in the bid to tie down the majority of the rural people to the land in
order that the unemployment problem did not assume such dimensions under whose
weight this order could collapse and the revolution for the overthrow of the
existing state could materialize. If millions of people in the villages are
thrown off unemployed in just one stroke, then this vast army of the unemployed
would explode in towns and villages and no kind of state machinery could save
the situation. That is why, under this capitalist system in our country,
full-scale modernization and mechanization of the agricultural system conducive
to industrialization is no longer possible. Hence this capitalist conspiracy to
tie down the majority of people to the rural economy in a half-clad,
half-starved state. The land reform programme of the Congress, the agent of the
ruling bourgeoisie, and the approach and programme of the votaries of national
democratic and people's democratic revolution on the issue of land reform, are
just revelations of this conspiracy.

Secondly, you should bear in mind, since in this era of imperialism and
proletarian revolution capitalism developed in our country in the period when
the bourgeoisie at the international level had become extremely reactionary,
this capitalism grew up in compromise with religion and feudalism. Because of
this, ours being a backward country, feudal hangover in habits and practices
persist as admixtures in the basic capitalist relation and exploitation in the
process of agricultural production, just like an impurity mixing up in gold. In
this case, whom to deal the blow ? The hangover, or capitalism which is the root
cause of exploitation ? In these circumstances, people who advocate dealing the
blow to whatsoever feudal remnants persist as admixtures in the capitalist
exploitation in this backward country instead of advocating for the overthrow of
capitalism, are in reality pleading for the capitalist exploitation itself, no
matter the rhetoric they employ against the bourgeoisie. You should grasp this
point clearly. You should realize, the main enemy of the revolutionary struggle
of the workers, peasants and the lower-middle class is the bourgeoisie of our
country who are in state power. People who seek to create confusion over this
issue in particular, who try to mislead on this matter and highlight the minor
issues, much less important issues relatively, in order to hide the real truth
and distract attention from the main enemy thereby, are actually subverting the
people's cause even as they claim to be Marxist-Leninists.

So, from every angle we find that of the three problems in the peasant's life
one concerns provision of adequate employment to the surplus population whose
numbers will be growing every day, to those who cannot be allotted land and will
be the surplus numbers after distribution of the recovered lands. Another
problem concerns modernization and mechanization of agriculture. And the
solution to both these basic problems is inseparably linked with the issue of
industrial revolution and opening the door to unhindered development of
industries. And unhindered progress of industries we can achieve only when we
can free production from the capitalist production relation and profit motive,
overthrowing the capitalist state and capitalist economic system with the force
of the anti-capitalist revolution.

But if it transpires that a party calling itself Marxist-Leninist has also
adopted 'land to the tiller' as the basic and the sole programme of its land
reform policy, it follows then that they too seek, in a different verbiage and a
different approach though, to tie down the majority of the rural people to three
bighas, one and half bighas of land in the half-starved and half-clad condition
of primitive uncivilized men. This could only be the task of the political
agents of the capitalists who seek to extend the lease of life of capitalism —
this is no task of the Marxist-Leninists. The Marxist-Leninists would want
development of agriculture, they would stand for modernization and mechanization
of agriculture. They would seek to demolish the whole moribund system for that
matter. They would do away with capitalism because this capitalism stands out as
the main hurdle to carrying out this demolition. At the same time they would
voice the slogan of 'land to the tiller', they would also raise voice for
scientific method in agriculture. Indeed it strikes me when I hear these
Marxist-Leninists call for 'stop introduction of tractor-machines as this will
go to aggravate unemployment'. I find it in the programme of some of these
parties that in respect to the peasant movement it is their policy to resist
introduction of tractor-machines and to unite this movement to resist
tractor-machines with the revolutionary line to overthrow feudalism. What a
self-contradiction[14] !
I just cannot make head or tail of it. Why to unite the anti-tractor-machine
movement with the struggle to overthrow feudalism ? It is the introduction of
tractor-machines which is to go to overthrow feudalism in the rural economy.
That is what happens. Is introduction of tractor-machines getting obstructed by
feudalism ? See, this is the same policy-plan like that of the bourgeoisie to
oppose tractor-machines — the bourgeois politics to guard capitalism against the
thrust of unemployment, something like the bourgeois land reform policy. In the
situation where, say, in the course of a peasant movement, peasants become
unemployed as a result of introduction of tractor-machines, then while rallying
them in the movement against that particular move, I will explain to them that
the people are not against introduction of tractor-machines. The peasant, in
fact, favours introduction of tractor-machines. How could uplift of the rural
economy be otherwise possible ? How could the rural life improve ? How could the
woes of agricultural labourers and poor peasants come to an end ? How could the
market expand ? How could the door to industrial revolution open up ? How could
production of agricultural commodities or raw materials for the industry be made
possible ? And the food problem of the country be solved ?

So, for the cause of progress, for ending the sufferings of the agricultural
labourers and poor peasants, to remove darkness from the rural life,
modernization and mechanization of agriculture is a necessity. But in today's
situation this cannot be achieved under the capitalist system. If attempted, a
very vast section of the agricultural labourers and poor peasants will be thrown
off unemployed in one single stroke. Even the small provision for sustenance
they have will come to cease. Hence, before overthrowing the capitalist state
and economic order and installing the socialist state and economic system in its
place, it is not possible to lay hand on this task. Whereas, without
modernization and mechanization of agriculture, the sufferings and woes of and
the darkness that prevails in the rural life at present cannot be eliminated
too. Therefore, for the sake of survival and in the interest of uplift of the
rural life, the agricultural labourers, landless peasants, poor peasants,
lower-middle peasants are all to come together without further delay and join
forces with the industrial proletariat and other working masses to engage in the
task of accomplishing the anti-capitalist revolution. So, they are to prepare
for replacing capitalism and till the time they could replace capitalism, the
right slogan on the issue of introduction of tractor-machines should be : Give
us alternative employment, else we will not allow tractor-machines. We, the
agricultural labourers and peasants, we are for modernization of agriculture. It
is introduction of tractor-machines which is exactly what we want, and exactly
for that we need to overthrow capitalism, because overthrowing capitalism will
ensure unhindered progress of industry, modernization and mechanization of
agriculture will be made possible, opening the road to all-out uplift of the
rural life will be possible, and thus it will be possible to change this face of
the rural life.

You must have realized from this discussion that this question of completing
the half-baked agrarian revolution in our country, that is, modernization and
augmentation of agricultural production and the question of providing permanent
employment to the surplus population in land is deeply interwoven with the
question of accomplishing anti-capitalist socialist revolution. This being the
real problem, those in our country who are voicing the slogan of national
democratic or people's democratic revolution instead of taking to the programme
of anti-capitalist socialist revolution, who are agitating the peasants with
firebrand revolutionary slogans are in reality staging mock fights for certain
reforms only within the existing capitalist economic order. By this act,
indirectly though, they are only helping to strengthen the present capitalist
rule. Remember, until and unless you can overthrow this capitalist economic
order with the force of revolution, the order which this capitalist state
protects and keeps going with its police, military, judiciary, and until you can
establish in its place your own police, military, court and judiciary, that is,
your own state, you cannot bring about industrialization in accord with your
needs, nor can you change the face of the village. There will be no solution to
the basic problems of the peasant life. This is indeed the main problem
confronting at present the movement for the peasant's emancipation.

To accomplish this anti-capitalist revolution, which great task devolves upon
you, you should grasp a few things more in the first place. Bear it in mind, if
in your thoughts and outlook you remain victim of the reactionary and
superstitious mentality of the old society, you cannot bring this great
revolution to success. But you will notice, the same attitude still prevails in
some measure in many of you. For instance, most of you carry the mentality that
when you are in want, you have no means to pull through, you cannot pay the
usurious interest to the money-lender, you come together then and make protests.
If your immediate demands come to be realized, you think you have achieved
everything, nothing remains to be done. You come to believe, by organizing
yourselves and waging some fights and all that, sparing no means whatever, you
could evade to pay the interest to the money-lender. You can never convince
yourselves to think that you have not evaded to pay the interest. Because, the
money-lender has no right to charge you usurious interest. You never think that
by charging you in this way the money-lender was committing a crime and you
resisted it by fighting against him. You think on the contrary, you have evaded
paying the interest. Your enemy resides in the recess of your mind — it is the
wrong sense of religiosity which the owners inculcate in your mind to undo you.
They tell you : 'Don't you obey God ? Is it the bidding of your faith that you
won't pay the interest for the loan you took ?' And you nod to agree. I would
ask : Is the religious sense to be invoked only when it comes to charging the
interest ? Has it no other meaning than just this ? If that be so, then this
religious sense had better be gone. If religion has nothing to do in matters of
ending the sufferings and woes of people, in stopping perpetration of injustice
upon them, resisting police repression, providing jobs to people, then better
bid farewell to that religion. The religious sense which teaches merely to pay
interest to the money-lender brings ruin only. Anyway, this sort of religious
sense prevails in you. With this religiosity you won't be able to accomplish
revolution. Revolution and this religious sense do not go together. Those who
want to win freedom from subjugation, who want to change the face of the
village, who want this capitalist exploitative system replaced, if they remain
in so narrow a world — victims of the canons of scripture, bigoted habits and
superstitions — can they accomplish revolution ? Is it possible for them to
liberate the country from the shackles of capitalist exploitation ? Remember,
those workers and peasants would be capable of running the industries and the
agriculture of the country under their own control, running their own state, own
police force and judiciary after demolishing this vast and overbearing
capitalist state, who are free from superstitions and from this religiosity —
peasants who are upright, who have the spirit to wage struggle, who have
rectitude and are capable of laying down their lives. Those peasants can achieve
it who realize that to live like humans, to build the road for their children to
live like humans, they have to struggle against all oppressions, all injustice
and superstitions. To acquire this make-up of mind you will have to practise the
revolutionary politics.

Give up mistaken attitude to rural gentry

In this connection I need to discuss yet another aspect. It is, you have in
you so many wrong perceptions about the rural gentry. Exploiting others they are
quite enjoying themselves in this exploitative social system, and most of them
who have left the village to reside in the town are having a good time.
Occasionally they visit the village when they dole out some money and maybe they
will donate for a make-shift bridge, hand out some funds for the school
committee, and with all this they get themselves accepted by you as
noble-hearted donors. Parting with a few silvers from the millions of rupees,
from the vast riches amassed in their troves by sucking your blood, they
contrive each to present himself as a noble donor. And you come to think, the
master landlord is noble-hearted. You receive them with garlands when they set
foot in the village. For, you think the master has done a lot for the village.
Not for once you pause to think wherefrom came the money into the master's
pocket which he doled out. Or, why he did need to donate. Why should you accept
charity from him who robbed you of your money by cheating you ? The selfsame man
who looted your money by fraud doled out a very petty sum out of it and had
himself received as a noble donor. So weak-kneed are you that just because you
need seeds for cultivation, you need a road bridge in your village, no sooner
the master obliged than you became his purchased man. Those whose fleecing
brought ruin to the village got themselves looked upon by you as noble-hearted
great souls, setting foot in the village once and sinking a tubewell, laying a
road, once constructing a make-shift bridge, or setting up an elementary-level
school. And you too started thinking that the master is indeed a good soul, he
has a very magnanimous heart. A rogue actually who cheats you to bring ruin to
your life played the tricks to get himself reckoned by you as a noble donor, and
in this way exactly you are getting yourselves cheated through the ages. You got
yourselves fooled by this circumstance because you lack revolutionary
consciousness, thoughts, education and a firm base of your own organization,
everything in fact. You must give up this mentality which still persists in you.

Interest of revolution and organization should be regarded as far greater
than individual interest

Other than this, you will notice, because of the lack of correct
revolutionary political consciousness while leading the peasant movements, the
sense of individual interest sometimes raises its head very dangerously under
impact of daily privations, and this harms the revolutionary movement. As is the
case with the owners of big land holdings who have greed and avarice for
property and for which they cheat each other, the mentality in you too which is
born of greed for private property spits venom during allotment of land amongst
yourselves. As the owners of big land holdings are afflicted with immense greed
for property, the same poisonous vice thrives in you too. Notice carefully, you
will feel that so strong is your fascination for land and so deep your
attachment to property you often get embroiled in bitter quarrels among
yourselves during distribution of land as to who will receive allotment and who
will not. Seldom you spare a thought to realize that all cannot get land at
once. Even if you distribute equally the lands you recovered together, not
everyone can get land. So, preserving the unity of the organization you the
people of the village should sit together first to settle who are the ones among
you who need to be allotted land in the first place. After allotment to them
first, if any land remains to be allotted then others will receive. Whereas,
what happens, without first settling it among yourselves, everybody joins in the
scramble to get land first. You start scrambling among yourselves for just two
or three bighas of land, which perhaps you won't be able even to retain in the
end. This tussle leads to infighting among you and as a result unity among
people becomes its victim. Among the cadres of the organization not having that
level of consciousness this even creates envy, bad blood and infightings. With
what outcome ? Thereby you weaken your own organization.

To resolve the problem arising from land distribution and allotment, you
should attend to two measures. First, since the land you recovered by your
struggle falls short of what is required by all who need land, so instead of
undermining your organization by fighting among yourselves you should first sit
together in your village under the leadership of the party or the leadership of
the local committee of the Krishak O Khetmajur Federation to settle whose needs
among you come foremost. Say, for example, the case of an able-bodied poor
peasant. He has a holding of one katha[15] and he can anyhow make some earnings by his labour.
Another peasant residing next to him is old and incapacitated, he too has a
holding of one katha. Both have want in their families. But of the two the one
who is able-bodied somehow does some sundry jobs, he can somehow run his
household even by carrying head-loads if needed. Whereas, the old man is without
the same capacity. If now the question of land allotment arises between these
two, then if he were a conscious peasant cadre, a revolutionary, the able-bodied
peasant would offer on his own that the old peasant should receive first and he
will get if land in excess is available. Such should be the attitude of
everyone. If all of you have this attitude, no agent of the enemy can succeed to
drive a wedge into the organization, no one from outside can create a division
within you.

Problem of land distribution is to be resolved by keeping intact
organization's unity

Secondly, you have got it in the Report here that in many places during land
allotment poor and landless peasants sat together and with the help of the
leadership they have resolved the issues democratically. Maintaining their trust
and confidence in the party and the party leadership they have preserved the
organization's unity like the apple of the eye. For no reasons whatsoever, at no
one's instigation either, did they allow the unity and solidarity to suffer.
Because, you have witnessed how in such cases not only the counterrevolutionary
parties but even those who masquerade as revolutionaries and by the red banner
confuse the poor peasants, they too instigate poor people to fight against poor
people. Say, you have recovered three bighas of benam land by your struggle,
while another party came up flying the red banner and they instigated some
peasants by stoking up petty self-interest in them to come to fight against you
and seize the land. You should know, by inciting petty self-interest no noble
task can be accomplished. What happens when a party goes after confusing you in
this way, with such unfair conduct and reprehensible acts ? The poor masses
become divided among themselves. Divided under banner of this and that party,
the poor peasants start fighting each other. Due to sheer opportunist politics
of these sham red flag-waving parties, the jotedars who are the bourgeoisie of
the rural society get the opportunity of watching these infights among you and
they merrily enjoy this. Even more, these jotedars, when they find it
expeditious, themselves pay some money to some poor peasants to send them with
the red banner in hand, so that they shout a few militant revolutionary slogans,
gather up a few bighas of land from this or that corner and having misguided the
poor peasants they set up a separate organization among them. How do they carry
out this act ? Say, some lands were recovered and from these some peasants got
land while some others did not get anything. Immediately after, an agent of the
jotedars or someone from a counterrevolutionary party came up to mislead those
who received no land : 'Just see, they gave land to the others but not to you.
Join our party, we will snatch away those lands'. Because they had not received
land, so these peasants thereupon left their organization to join this agent.
This manoeuvre amounts to treachery within one's own home. Thus, at every turn
of issue, at minor turns and passing issues, the focal point of your base
politics, that is, the revolutionary preparation for transforming the capitalist
state and capitalist economy is getting undermined. With the organization so
loosely knit, its cadres shifting from this to that organization for
self-interest, revolution cannot come about. With the poor peasants engaging in
infights over allotment of land, they cannot accomplish revolution. They cannot
be revolutionaries, after all, who instigate some poor people to seize the lands
of other poor people. These are some common but pertinent considerations — you
must be alive to them.

Sad history of forcible conversion of social property into individual
property

Remember, it is true the peasant is to wage struggle to get land, but he need
not indulge in greed for land. To get land is a just demand of yours. Because,
it was your ancestors who fought ferocious animals, cleared forestlands and dug
up rocky wastes to make land cultivable. 'God created cultivable lands and made
the landlords owners of these lands' — no, nobody became the owner that way. All
members of society together made land suitable for cultivation. Long past, all
men in society lived together divided into clans and they wandered from one
place to another in quest of livelihood. Thus wandering they came to settle in
different places in the course of that quest. Then it was almost humanly
impossible struggles they had to carry out against tigers, say, and many other
ferocious animals, against nature as a whole, and with inhuman toil they cleared
forestlands and turned rocky and barren lands suitable for cultivation. After
making the land suitable for cultivation when they settled down permanently and
started raising crops then some chieftains among them who had greater muscle
power and could use force in their interest became the owners of land, depriving
others through sheer force. Who did thus forcibly appropriate the wealth which
was created by the labour of all the people together ? They were the forefathers
of the zemindars you know today.

The big owners with their sleek look you witness today — some hundred or
thousand years back their ancestors did not have so shapely, graceful feet, say,
as today, they were not as gentlemanly then. They lived off muscle power, the
gang leaders of robbers. In the initial stage they lived together with your
forefathers, they struggled together. Afterwards, through sheer force they
became the masters, the ruling elite, the feudal lords. Thereafter, during the
British rule, they served the British and became the zemindars. So it happened
that the lands which all people had one day collectively made fit for
cultivation with hard toil and over which all the people of society had an equal
right, the same lands were subsequently usurped through sheer force by a band of
men who deprived you criminally. Therefrom came the monarchical system,
feudalism from it, the zemindar system thereafter during the British rule. Now
they have established individual ownership over lands. Now they are instilling
it in you that these are all the properties of the owners and you are the slaves
of the owners. So, as slaves, your sacred duty is to protect your master's
property. That you are born slaves is the consequence of your sins in the
preceding life. Whereas, the masters are born the owners as a reward for the
virtuous work in their preceding life, so they drink and outrage women as they
desire. On the other hand, for all your many commissions you have turned out to
be their slaves today. For thousands of years they have been teaching you that
the king is on a par with God. The king is God himself whether the king is a
tyrant, he is given to drunken revelries, is an outrager of women. You are
obliged to serve him. Driving this into your head they have even turned your
mind servile. For, you have forgotten a history of thousands of years. There
lies behind a sad history of how a handful of men became the owners of all lands
and you became their slaves. You who will take on political activity, if you
will just keep to struggling on the demand for land, wage-rise and relief, you
cannot have fostered in you that sustainable strength to draw upon for that
struggle. You ought to know this history. Leaders and cadres of the party will
relate to you this history. As you will come to know of it, it will spark off a
fire in you. How come you are slaves today in the same land which your ancestors
had all collectively made fit for cultivation, together you had owned it
collectively. And even if someone has belief in the existence of God, it has to
be presumed that he by no means made anybody master or owner of the land. How
were you dispossessed forcibly of the lands ? Later, when the owners set
themselves up as the rulers in order to retain the ownership over this land,
they made it the law and you came to submit to it, obeying the law as you went
about, forgetting the sad history of how you got dispossessed of the lands.

Later, towards the end of the British rule, under the Rayatwari Act
[16] ownership was
allowed to those who held tenancy of land. But, these land-tenants could hardly
avail of this provision because of their ignorance, their lack of awareness and
the weakness of the organization. The big landowners deprived them by fraud on
legal provisions and, in connivance with officials, they usurped those lands.
Afterwards, during the rule of the Congress government, when the Abolition of
Middle Proprietary Act or the Zemindari Abolition Act was enacted — I told you
about it earlier — poor peasants were deprived and others appropriated most of
the lands in connivance with officials. Even so, the very few among you who got
whatever land, could not retain the same land. How did that land go out of your
hands ? It became the grist of the grinding mill of capitalist exploitation
which in fact stands out at present as the main obstacle on your way to survival
— the one without overthrowing which you have no prospect of emancipation.
Should you now want to secure a firm base for your struggle against this
prevailing capitalist social system, you should know the past history to some
extent. Only in this way will you be able to sustain strength in this struggle.
Only then could you free yourselves from the deceit of the religious sense, from
the guiles of sense of property. Long back your ancestors were overwhelmed by
muscle-men, by the might of chieftains, and they made you slaves. Grabbing the
lands by force they became the masters. But the same poisoned blood runs in your
veins too. For which you start scrambling among yourselves over possession of
three meagre patches of land, or one patch of land — just that. This is the same
poisoned blood as flows in the veins of the zemindars. They battle over big
lands, you too are victim of the same illusion centring round land. Just for,
say, two or three kathas, eight kathas, or a bigha or two of land, even poor
peasants are fighting poor peasants over possession of land. On the contrary, it
should have been your task that you will recover all benam and vested lands and
you will distribute these lands first among those who are the most needy, the
poorest and the most helpless by comparison, and ensure that no ill-feeling
ensues among you by any means over this distribution. Because, ill-feeling will
undermine the unity among you. Consequently, the ultimate struggle against
capitalism will suffer.

I said earlier, to grasp all these you are to learn the revolutionary
politics. Only then you can realize all these. From whom will you learn the
revolutionary politics and how ? Remember, to learn the revolutionary politics
it is the prime requisite that in the first place you will recognize the
revolutionary party and develop voluntary submission to that party. In the
second place, learn the revolutionary politics, as you engage in day-to-day
struggles, from those political workers equipped with the revolutionary politics
who can reveal layer by layer the truth of everything around. But the fact is,
you are just not following this. You do not participate in the organization to
learn politics. Rather, you look for something or other from your organization.
Or, you ask them to look after your court case. If your need could not be
fulfilled, you get into a bad mood. I might ask you here whether the need to
organize your revolutionary political party is to plead for your court cases.
What is your necessity for the leader ? Remember, the leaders are the commanders
of the people's army. They guide you in two ways. Firstly, they give you
counsel, wise guidelines, help you build revolutionary character and teach you
how to attain the right outlook to judge each problem. On the other, they
acquaint you with the intricacies and concrete form of the struggle against your
powerful enemy, its police-military organs, all its diverse means and
trickeries. But, as things go, you do not learn these from your leaders. You
would rather like them to work as pleaders for your case. To that I say, a
pleader can be hired with money — what is the need of a revolutionary party for
that ? You take the party workers to be your pleaders for free. You seem to
think, since you have cast your vote for the party, you participate in the
processions they organize and lend your voice for the slogans raised, so they
will do the pleader's job for you for free. The truth is that they do it but not
in return for something. To do it for you is part of their work. But you should
realize, if you keep them busy this way for all the twentyfour hours a day, when
are they going to teach you politics ? When will they organize you ? When will
they build up your volunteer corps ?

Another mentality is also noticeable in the ordinary-level peasants among
you. Facing a problem, they would rather go straight to a leader of high level,
if they get him close at hand, rather than go to the village committee. Their
idea is that with a big leader his capacity to get them some concession is also
greater. For this, they do not feel happy unless they approach the big leader.
If this way thousands of peasants keep the high ranking leaders busy every day
with their day-to-day problems, how could the party leaders get time to effect
big plans for developing the organization, building party committees in the
villages and larger areas, and imbue thousands of people with the revolutionary
ideology to develop a steel-strong organizational base ? If you would persist in
your practice of pleading with the leaders only for getting you a land, asking
them to plead with the court offices in favour of your case, get something for
you from the BDO[17] ,
arrange something for your son, and if you argue that some one else has got what
he had asked for and so he can stay in the organization but why you will stay if
you do not get your needs fulfilled, then you will be gravely harming your own
cause. You need to remember, all this thinking goes against your revolutionary
movement, your united struggles. Because, as a result of this mentality and mode
of thinking, self-interest becomes more dominant than the greater interest of
keeping the organization alive. As a result, the Krishak O Khetmajur Federation,
the instrument of your day-to-day struggle, gets weakened. With the Krishak O
Khetmajur Federation getting weakened, your collective interest comes to suffer
in the end. You must therefore wage a resolute struggle against this mentality
and train the peasant cadres with proper political education.

There is another important issue in this regard which I intend to discuss
with you. I explained firstly that so long as the capitalist state exists some
of your problems might be solved through reforms within its framework or by
realizing some demands in the course of movements. But unless this capitalist
state could be overthrown with the force of revolution and seizure of power by
workers and peasants did materialize, all the problems in the peasants' lives
will not be solved, these cannot be solved. You should as well grasp clearly
what this seizure of power by workers and peasants means. You should remember,
that workers and peasants seizing power does not mean securing ministerial
positions by formation of a government through elections within the framework of
the present state. Workers and peasants seizing power means workers and peasants
establishing their own state by overthrowing this capitalist state, workers and
peasants setting up their own police-military organs in the place of the
capitalist police-military organs, installing a system of justice conducive to
the interests of workers and peasants in the place of the present judicial
system of the capitalist state, that is, completely restructuring the judiciary
anew on the basis of the socialist ideology and principles, this new system
being conducted by those who are from the ranks of workers and peasants — in a
word, workers and peasants themselves running their own state. Till creation of
this situation, even though it may be possible to realize some demands in the
course of movements or by way of negotiation with the authorities, the real
problems of the poor people cannot be solved. Politically conscious peasant
cadres will explain this point to others. Because, it is often seen that
whenever an issue is not resolved and remains unresolved, some elements from an
agent party of the owners come in to create division among you. They say many
adverse things to sow confusion in you about your organization. Pointing to a
leader of the organization they would say : 'Well, he is now an MLA, a minister
at that, but what has he done for you ?' That leader did a lot for you, as far
as possible, or, maybe, he could not do many things, and you can understand that
it is not possible either to solve all the problems before revolution. So, it
comes down to knowing which party it is which has taught the poor to stand up
with head high for the cause of revolution — the revolution without which all
your problems cannot be solved, which party it is which has taught the peasants
to rally in their organization for the cause of revolution. This shall be the
moot point with you. Whereas, over this issue at different times, even over
trifles, serious confusions are seen to prevail among you. Taking full advantage
of this, your opponent party and the agents of the enemy undermine your
organization, the one which is the prime instrument for your struggle. So, you
must give up this mentality in the interest of the struggle for your own
emancipation.

What should be the character of the organization

Now I should discuss a few aspects concerning the organization. You should
first realize what should be the character of that steel-strong organization
which I am urging you to build up — I mean, in a word, the kind of organization
at one whistle-call of which, a bugle call, a beat of drum, or a stroke on a
dhol[18] all people in
the village will at once rush out with anything handy as weapon. Say, the
village party committee gave a call with drum-beat for rallying in a procession
— at once all the youth, boys and girls together rose to their feet. They left
aside the other jobs to be done later. For, they have understood, the
organization is like the apple of the eye. If the eye is lost, man turns blind.
Likewise, if the organization becomes weak then the collective strength of
people becomes weaker too. Thus, such like shall be the character of the
organization that on a single instruction from the party you can rise to your
feet all prepared, be it for a meeting, a procession, a battle with the
opponent, a contingency to proceed to a place, a rally in the locality or
elsewhere. This ability to take a decision collectively on the basis of the
party's ideology and base political line, this ability to move collectively is
what we call the organization. You should remember that some people merely
assembling under the signboard of the party, or gathering around some leaders
and together engaging in activity under the direction of the leader — just these
do not add up to be called a political organization. As is often found, in
different areas each one of the cadres sits out waiting for instructions to come
from leaders and when the instruction comes from above they probably try best to
put the same into effect. But collectively on their own they cannot take a
decision on the basis of the party's ideology and base political line, they
cannot take initiative on an issue. Even if a number of people come together
into a kind of loose structure, that cannot be called a proper political
organization, let alone a revolutionary organization.

Keep in mind also to resolve whatever bickerings arise among yourselves with
the help of the party's local leadership — such should be the nature of the
organization. Should it happen that you cannot agree to the decision of the
local leadership then you will appeal to the higher committee or to a higher
leader. But you must not move the court of law over issues involving yourselves,
you must not disrupt the organization having developed bad blood, must not
weaken the organization. Why do you need to go to court ? If the owners get you
entangled in a court case, then of course you have to approach the court. But as
poor people you should never go to the court over feuds among yourselves. You
will resolve all your feuds at your own village committee, local party
committee, or the local committee of the Krishak O Khetmajur Federation. If any
disagreements persist at this level, you will appeal to the higher committee. No
expending money here, no hassle, no fear of getting trapped by touts or
unscrupulous lawyers. You don't have to be afraid of becoming destitutes, or of
any divisions coming in between you. Even when you are going to die you leave
behind your unity intact. Remember, to go against the party or the organization
over personal antagonism or animosity under any circumstances is against the
grain of a revolutionary, an ideologically imbued worker or peasant. Also you
should remember, because the allegiance of the members of the organization to
the party committee and the party leadership is voluntarily inspired so it
remains unquestioning in the interest of revolution. The party shall be at the
helm of the mass fronts. To belittle it is to undermine the base line of
struggle itself. These are teachings you ought to take to heart and propagate
and spread among others.

Two types of organization — mass and party organization

You should know, the organization in which you rally to build up your
struggles collectively are of two types. Consider, for instance, that together
you take out processions, you do gherao, submit your demands, hold meetings, at
times you get into direct clashes with the jotedars and the police — all these
you do from an organization which we call the own class organization of the
agricultural labourers and peasants. As for example, the poor peasants' and
agricultural labourers' own class organization of your village is the Krishak O
Khetmajur Federation which brings together all the poor peasants and
agricultural labourers into its fold for waging struggles. Besides, there are
the other various organizations of the peasants — for example, the co-operative,
the village defence force, the volunteer corps, etc. You should however realize,
simply with these organizations you cannot carry out the big task, you cannot
make much headway. What can you achieve at the most only with this type of
organizations? You come out together in order to realize those few demands with
these organizations which you feel will stall your life unless these are won
immediately. When these demands are realized, or when repression comes heavily
down upon you in the course of your movement to win these demands, or if
repression is brought to bear heavily upon the organization, the organization
faces disruption, it starts disintegrating completely. Some people flee the
organization out of fear. Maybe some others turn into agents. Some start
deserting, some others are afraid to show up. Maybe they will not say as much in
words that they are scared, in reality though they flee from fear. In this type
of organizations many betray such attitudes. These happen because the activists
of these organizations lack revolutionary political consciousness and political
organizational strength.

There is a different type of organization which is built with those political
workers who are tempered with revolutionary education and are from the mass
organizations. It is the party organization. Within the mass organizations,
those who are politically most conscious, who all have knowledge of the sad
history of the lives of the workers and peasants, who know how man emerged in a
long history after the origin of the earth, how agriculture came thereafter, how
society was at that period, how did the lands collectively reclaimed turn into
private property, what was the origin of private property in society, how arose
the monarchy, the feudal lords, the babus, the usurers in the village community,
the birth and development of capitalism, the capitalist state, the development
of the industries, the proletariat class, the growth of the unemployment problem
— that is, who know and understand the entire history of the woes and sufferings
of the common people, and at the same time who know how to tackle all these, how
to establish the workers' and peasants' state by overthrowing the present
capitalist state, to run that state, to organize the army of the people,
organize the police system, conduct the judiciary, and conduct the ideological
propaganda as well as the ideological and theoretical struggle, in fact, those
who will unitedly wage the battle against the present capitalist state and its
police and military, staking their lives in this battle, never to betray its
cause, never conducting themselves in debased and mean culture but possessing
higher ethical and cultural standard, who are capable of performing the roles of
commanders in the revolutionary struggle of the masses — it is comprising them
that the party organization develops. So, we, the Marxist-Leninists, the
revolutionaries, call them the members of the party organization who carry out
the task of revolution having mastered revolutionary politics, who will
transform the social order, change the world.

You should also know that within the party organization, in every locality,
the higher party organization takes concrete shape in the party committee, the
committee under which you work. Can this party committee be formed picking up
anyone and everyone ? No. The party committee has to be formed with those from
among the party workers who are capable of politically analysing all local
problems whatsoever from the party's angularity and resolving them by
maintaining party leadership over the common people. They lead the common people
in their movements, at the same time they keep watch on the propaganda of the
opponent party and expose the real character of these propaganda so that
peasants and labourers are not misled. They also remain alert so that no agents
from outside get an opportunity to carry out factional activities among peasants
and labourers. They should have the ability to take care of all the problems of
the agricultural labourers and peasants of the locality — for instance, the
problems of fixing the minimum wage of the agricultural labourers, availability
of round-the-year job, wage-increase in keeping with price-rise, the problem of
irrigation, getting fertilizers and seeds at cheap rates, problems relating to
lands, those arising from day-to-day struggles, keeping peasants and labourers
ever alert against all trickeries and misleading propaganda by the opponent
parties. They should be capable of taking appropriate steps to maintain the
unity and solidarity of peasants and agricultural labourers against any attempts
of the hostile agent party to disrupt their unity. They are to be equipped so as
to be able to take political classes of the peasants. In plain language, the
party committee is the body which is capable of conducting all these tasks,
acting in unison. From time to time they will approach the leaders to get an
understanding of the plans and programmes, but every day they do not send the
common peasants to the leaders. Rather, they themselves meet the necessities of
common peasants and labourers.

I should tell you one more point here. Poor people in the village who become
members of the committee, or members of the party, often ask a question. They
argue : 'We are poor, at home we have problems of providing food for the family,
or problems relating to farming, in fact a thousand problems in the family
concerning wife and children. Where is the time to attend to the party work ?'
Thus, whatever the party work assigned, it remains unattended. In situations
like this the party committee becomes a party committee in name only. Remember,
you are members of the party committee, which is to say, you are the most
conscious section of party workers, you are the ones who are most eligible to be
party volunteers. If you cannot come forward upholding the mentality and mental
bent to go ahead disregarding all sorts of personal loss then all those around,
those who are weak in mind, who lack revolutionary education and revolutionary
political consciousness — they will become further weakened. All the more, this
way of rationalization and posing of individual problems obviously will have
greater retrograde effect on them. You should therefore understand, for the
class conscious revolutionary worker this is entirely a wrong line of thinking.
Because, the necessity to accomplish revolution with a view to overthrowing this
exploitative capitalist system is greatest for the proletariat and
semi-proletariat. If you are to win emancipation, even in the midst of these all
too many wants and troubles flowing from your sufferings under capitalist
exploitation, it is for you to come out, it is for you to take the initiative.
Those in this society who live in ease and comfort, they will not do it for you.
In all countries where revolution has been successful, if you will read the
histories of these countries, you will gather that it was because the workers
and peasants there, thousands in numbers, could rise above their personal needs
and sufferings, and singularly they devoted themselves to carrying out the task
of revolution — so revolution could succeed there.

Class correlation in the background of anti-capitalist revolution in India

Now try to understand clearly who is the main enemy of the revolution you are
to accomplish in order to overthrow the Indian capitalist state, and who are
your allies. In a word, understand clearly the correlation of classes in this
society. Remember, the capitalists, the owners of benam lands, the big jotedars,
big businessmen, the usurers, and the political party of theirs — the Congress —
also the police-military of this state, and the bureaucrats and officials —
these are the enemy of this revolution. Whereas, the life-force of the
revolution is the industrial workers of the urban areas and the landless
peasants, agricultural labourers and poor peasants of the villages. Besides, you
are to draw into the fold of revolution the middle class and the lower
middle-class in towns and villages so that they do not become
counter-revolutionary and join the enemy's camp. With respect to the middle
peasants and lower strata of the middle peasants of the villages you will have
to conduct yourselves with such an attitude and ideological approach. Remember,
not to speak of the urban lower-middle class, even the rural lower-middle class
do not always stand against the class struggle unlike the police, the military,
the officials of the judiciary, other reactionary officers, the capitalist class
itself, big businessmen, big jotedars in the countryside and the reactionary
upper-middle class who are all outright opponents of the communist movement and
the emancipation struggle as well as class struggles of the workers and
peasants. True, the rural middle-class, even the lower-middle class also, have a
common tendency to oppose the class struggle. Since however they are also under
attack, they are also victim of exploitation, peace is wanting in their families
too, so if you pursue a realistic and effective approach in regard to them you
can win them over to your side in the struggle for emancipation — though not as
steadfast and unfaltering fighters, but as vacillating allies. If you can
strongly organize the poor in the villages, if you can raise a strong storm of
mass movements, movements of peasants and labourers against rich peasants, if
you can build party committees in all rural areas and under the leadership of
the party committee give birth to a steel-strong organization of landless
peasants, agricultural labourers and poor peasants so that all the poor people
in the village rise to their feet at one call, its impact is sure to fall upon
the rural middle-class, and, in that event, it will be easier for you to rally
them in your struggle.

Rally the rural middle-class and lower-middle class in the anti-capitalist
revolutionary struggle

There is another point which too you should explain to the middle class. It
is that the poor peasants of today have come from breakdown of the middle-class
families. Young members of middle-class families do not get employment. They
cannot move up the ladder to become bigwigs, they cannot take to big business
and earn fabulous riches. When the crop is harvested, the middle class too has
to sell out their produce to the traders at low prices. How many middle class
peasants are there in this Birbhum district, who like Baidyanath Banerjee the
owner of thousands of bighas of land and owner of coal mines, can store their
produce in cold storages in their individual capacity ? And the owners build
cold storages for business purpose, not for their own consumption. But a middle
class peasant cannot store his produce even for the purpose of his own
consumption. They have to sell out all their produce at the time of harvesting.
The price at which they sell out to the traders is one, and the price at which
they have to buy the same articles from the traders is one-and-a-half times to
two times that. So, the condition of the middle class is not good either. It
started from them that by the process of economic disintegration the poor
peasants, agricultural labourers and landless peasants have arisen. If the
middle class who own today, say, forty or fifty bighas of land have to live on
land only, then under the impact of price-rise and due to growth of the family
they gradually turn into lower-middle class peasants, then poor peasants,
finally agricultural labourers. Therefore, unless the capitalist social system
of India is demolished, the dominance of the village jotedars and owners of
benam lands brought to an end, the absolute control over the rural commodity by
businessmen and the stock exchange broken down, that is, the rural economy rid
of their control, the problems of the middle class too — problems concerning
improvement of cultivation, modernization of agriculture, necessary education
and employment for the young members of their families — these will not be
solved. Then why should they hang around the babus, the big landlords, the
owners and go against the poor peasants and labourers and thus make both sides
hostile ? To grow bigger, the high and the mighty do not only exploit the
agricultural labourers, landless and poor peasants, they also deprive and
exploit the middle class. Continually grabbing the lands of the middle class the
big rich peasants concentrated vast lands in their hands and thus they became
big jotedars. The village usurers cheat the middle class and the poor peasants
and thus they run their money lending business. You should explain it to the
middle class that they do not belong to the rich and it does not serve them to
stay close to the babus. Explain it that in the given situation if they stay
close to the rich and oppose the poor, how could the poor protect them from the
rich ? Therefore they should not unnecessarily embroil themselves in conflict
with the poor. On the contrary, if poor peasants and agricultural labourers have
the middle class as allies in the battle against capitalism, the main enemy,
against the big jotedars and the oppressive government of the country, then the
local minor issues of conflict between the middle class, on the one hand, and
the poor peasants and agricultural labourers, on the other hand, could be
resolved easily under the leadership of the party committees. The local party
committees can see to it that the middle class suffers less and the poor
peasants demand less from them. However, in that case, the middle class must
come to the help of the struggle of the agricultural labourers, poor and
landless peasants. You could thus persuade the middle class and rally them in
your movements.

Isolate the enemy from the broad masses

On your part you should realize too that winning the middle class over to
your side is, to be sure, in the interest of your broadest struggle against the
enemy. Because, if the middle class, the intermediary between you and your
enemy, join strength with your enemy because of your wrong handling, that will
only go to strengthen the hands of your enemy. On the other, if you can draw the
middle class to your side by treading the correct line, you can thereby isolate
the enemy from the broader masses and it will be easier for you to build your
struggle stronger. So, you understand well, it is not wise for you too to
conduct yourselves with unnecessary hostility towards the middle class. Unless
the middle class themselves invite conflict, you should not turn them into your
opponents in your main struggle against the big capitalists and the jotedars. If
they, regarding themselves as the high and the mighty, do not treat you in an
inimical way you should not get into conflict with them. Because, to win the
battle, it is as much a task of yours, on the one hand, to create division in
the enemy camp, as is, on the other, isolating the enemy from the broader masses
as far as possible also a task of yours. That will make the battle less tough
for you. But keep in mind here that if you try to get the middle class on your
side by appeasing them, allowing indulgence to their opportunism due to their
vacillating character, you will never succeed in your bid. Only if you can build
your organization on the firm foundation of revolutionary political
consciousness of all the agricultural labourers, landless and poor peasants of
your village, will it be possible for you to effectively hold the middle class
in the fold of the revolutionary movement. You should be vigilant also about
another nature of the middle class. In regard to this keep always vigil on them
even as you will be trying to draw in the middle class as an ally of your
movement. Keep in mind, even as they may join your movement as an ally, they are
the vacillating ally. They always move with a babu-like attitude. There is very
much a tendency in them to despise the poor, the ploughman, farm workers, the
landless peasants and agricultural labourers. Not that everyone has this
attitude, but many have it. Because they have this tendency, and they have an
inclination to rise to upper levels and be rich, they may inflict harm to the
movement from within as and when the opportunity may come their way, even while
they are fighting alongside you. So, at the same time as you will try constantly
to draw the middle class into your movement and rally them with you, you will
also be watchful about them.

If you are class conscious, you should also realize that to win your battle,
and this is a common tactics in a battle, you will try to create division in the
enemy camp in your own interest, should that be possible, and you will take
advantage of any possible antagonism within the enemy camp. For example, in the
antagonism between one jotedar and another, if you can handle one side a bit,
that is, if you can tactfully handle one side and can manoeuvre to engineer a
clash in the enemy camp itself, you get some advantage to crush the enemy. This
is a common tactics in every battle. Often, however, it is seen that if an
attempt is made to handle the antagonism between one rich person and another,
some among you immediately get agitated over it. Because, they think a close
liaison is perhaps being maintained with that rich person. You should give up
this sort of foolish attitude. Remember, the more you could widen the rift in
the enemy camp, the more you could foment contradiction and conflicts among
them, the less severe would be their attack on you and the stronger will be the
impact of your counterattack on the enemy. But in this regard you must
constantly keep vigil so that no one could ever take recourse to it from
personal fascination, personal consideration, keeping the party in the dark
about it. It has to be undertaken always under the party committee's directive
and party guidance. Else, this in itself will beget opportunism in the active
workers of the organization. These are things to be understood very clearly.

Build workers' and peasants' own powerful volunteer corps

And, you have to build up your own powerful, disciplined and ideologically
tuned volunteer corps. In this regard you should realize, first of all, that
wearing a volunteer badge or participating in drills for some days does not make
one a volunteer. A volunteer is one who serves a cause on his own will, which
means he serves not in lieu of a payment. If you offer money, could there be a
dearth of men willing to put in service ? So, one who argues : 'That person is
an MLA, so I am serving him in the hope he will do something for me,' he cannot
be a volunteer. He who serves for a reward, or does it hankering after something
or in lieu of a remuneration is not reckoned a volunteer. Who were volunteers in
fact ? Those sannyasis[19]
of the past — Sri Ramakrishna and Vivekananda, for example — and those of the
freedom struggle — revolutionaries like Netaji Subhas, Kshudiram, Chandrasekhar
Azad, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukdev, for example — who all laid down their lives
for the cause of the country. They did their work or courted death not in lieu
of money from anyone. These were the men whose names immediately come to mind
when one talks of volunteers, men who are revered by all — like the religious
preachers of the past, later the social reformers, then the fighters of the
national liberation struggles. Volunteers are those whose job is to work for
others selflessly like these noble men, forsaking homes, families and kins,
enduring scolding from every corner, sparing all consideration for own comforts.
This is the same country however where today many of you enquire, if approached
for enrolment as a volunteer : 'How much you say is the allowance to be paid to
become a volunteer?' To such a low level have people of this country been
induced to stoop in their thinking that they ask as to how can they be
volunteers if no remuneration were paid even for some snacks and pocket money.
You see this is the way they are accustomed to think. The bourgeois parties and
the pseudo red flag-waving parties of this country contributed no less in
creating this mental attitude among the people. Not to speak of the bourgeois
parties, even the socialists and the pseudo red flag-waving parties have
introduced the practice of engaging cadres in exchange of money in such a
widespread manner that its harmful effect seems to escape notice of all. Because
of the role of these parties, this degenerate mentality is gradually taking grip
on the people and the party cadres, and also because of this the idea of a noble
ideology ingrained in the word volunteer, prevailing at a time, has been
obscured and muddled up today. For this, even many among you have no prick of
conscience and quite easily you grow accustomed to thinking as to how you can
undertake to do anything without being paid. I would put in : 'Why do people who
think in these terms need to be volunteers ? They better go and enrol as police
constables.' Remember, they are to be volunteers who have the consciousness
grown in them that they will transform this society, they will usher in a new
world. They will be the volunteers, those youth, who take on willingly this
great responsibility, no matter whether they have to go with or without the
barest of necessities, those who feel proud that they bear this responsibility.

Consider, for example, the instance of the peasants and workers of China who
fought against the mercenary army of Ziang Ky-shek that received assistance from
the different capitalist countries, especially from America. That mercenary army
had the privilege of full military dresses, arms, vehicles, etc., together with
regular salaries and also various illegitimate means of earning lots. Whereas,
those peasants and workers who fought these mercenaries backed by capitalism and
imperialism had none of these. Some wore a pajama, some wore lungis, some others
half-pants, some had a vest to wear, some others a shirt to put on and even
these were often torn — again some wore cloth-shoes, and some without this
benefit even, went on fighting barefooted. Such was the look of the People's
Liberation Army there. But it is the People's Liberation Army which ultimately
inflicted a crushing defeat on the mercenary army paid by America and Ziang
Ky-shek and drove them out of the country. What was the source of the strength
with which they achieved this ? On the strength of dresses ? Or, was it on the
strength of arms ? Look at how people in the jungles of Vietnam are fighting
today. Children from peasant families, some twelve or thirteen years old, those
whom we call kids, they too carry rifles on their shoulders. Even while they are
doing chores at home, farming lands, as soon as they hear the bugle sounding for
battle they leave aside the work on hand as it is, they even put down their
food, get up from their beds, in whatever state they are they rush out with
their rifles. It is for this that so big a power as America which has razed down
that country by pouring down bombs, which spends thousands of crores of rupees
every day for this war, which is out to slaughter the people of that land with
its arms, tanks, napalm bombs and modern weaponry — even this America with all
of these perpetrations now stands faced with defeat. It is thinking now, how it
can flee Vietnam[20].
Why could not America win the war in Vietnam after all these ? It is because
peasants in every village there, everyone from aged mothers even to the children
in every family have ranged up in the battlefield there. All stand by a single
vow — America has to be driven out. If you have nothing else on hand, take up
your kitchen knife to fight the enemy. If that too is unavailable, just bite the
enemy down with your teeth — so firm is the resolve, so prepared are all to
court death. A scramble goes on there among them to lay down life. You will be
astonished to learn, the peasants and workers fighting in Vietnam have a squad,
which they call 'suicide squad'. They enlist themselves in that squad to lay
down their lives. Such suicide squads of ten or twenty people, equipped with
bombs and other firearms, enter the enemy camp all on a sudden. There they kill
the enemy as many as they can and themselves die. There goes on a scramble to
get enlisted in the suicide squad. Their sense of pride or picquance is over who
will go ahead of others. One who fails to have the chance of going first has his
sentiments churned up : 'You did not send me first, am I any the less ? Am I not
capable of sacrificing my life for the country ? Am I incapable of fighting for
revolution ? Am I not a son worthy of a peasant family ? Am I a simpleton, a
good for nothing who thinks only of his self and evades his task ? I too am the
son of a peasant family who considers it the highest honour to lay down his life
for liberation movement.' Such is the attitude every peasant and worker of that
country betrays. Could this be ever achieved by mercenaries ? Just realize, this
is the character of a true volunteer. In this way, you too will have to raise
all the people with revolutionary spirit and realization. So, you realize, those
who will become volunteers, they don't do so in return for money. Whatever
little they will need while they carry out their task, they will collect the
same in bits, collect them from thousands — one paise from everyone, a handful
of rice from every man — this will do for you. But carry out your task you must.
For that you do require volunteers — such volunteers who are imbued with right
spirit and realization.

Tasks of volunteers

What will these volunteers do ? They will keep track of the movement of the
enemy. Who are the enemy agents entering into the village, which families they
are visiting, whom they are trying to confound — the volunteers will gather
information about all these. These men of the opponent parties will be trying to
undermine the mass movement and the organization — not of course by convincing
the masses on politics, but by raking up their base instincts, or by means of
muscle power, or by alluring them. The volunteer will keep constant vigil so
that these men cannot undermine people's organizations and movements, the
volunteers will by all means guard the masses against this evil influence. They
will organizedly guard the party meetings. They will seat people at a meeting in
a disciplined way. While they will listen to the deliberation of the meeting,
they will keep vigil like an eagle on everything around at the same time so that
the opponent party or the people of the enemy camp cannot break up the meeting.
They will protect the distressed in the villages. They will provide protection
to women from those who may try to outrage the women. If wayward youths
humiliate the aged or old people, they will sternly take them to task. Again
immediately after, they will affectionately, like a friend explain to them where
they were wrong. They will explain that this is not proper. Because, these
people are aged, they are like fathers. Maybe they did something wrong, or said
something unjust. But they are like our fathers. It is our duty to protect their
honour, the respect that is due to them. It is a human duty. If we fail in this,
we cannot claim ourselves to be humans. Educate them this way. Don't turn them
into your enemy. Thus it is a major duty of the volunteers that they will
respect women, they will be paying respects to the aged and will protect their
honour whenever someone will violate it. First stop them who show disrespect,
then try to educate them with an attitude of sympathy. Even after this if they
don't pay heed, despise them and take appropriate steps against them.

And it shall be the task of the volunteers that when the masses will take to
the battle against the enemy, like army generals they will lead them forward.
The volunteers shall learn how to fight the battle, how to advance the combat,
when to retreat, and when to encircle the enemy from all sides and overrun them.
For this purpose the volunteers are to be trained up. To train them up thus and
guide them in a disciplined way, the volunteer corps is to be divided into small
groups with a commander heading each group. The commanders are to perform a twin
task at once. Firstly they will have to impart practical training to the
volunteers, while at the same time in order to imbue them with revolutionary
political consciousness and temper them with revolutionary character they will
have to impart political education. In this context, the volunteers, too, should
bear in mind a very important teaching. The teaching is, for all the party is
the highest commander. It is correct, the volunteers will obey what the
commander of the group will ask them to do. But, remember, so long as it is the
party's assignment, so long as the party holds him as its assigned commander and
he obeys the party leadership, he is your leader. But if he turns against the
party, if he violates the party discipline or seeks to disobey the party
leadership or treats the party leadership with disrespect, then the commander in
question should be apprehended immediately and handed over to the leadership. He
has to be removed. Your allegiance to the party and to the party's highest
leadership should be unquestioning. Remember, without a firm base of discipline
no volunteer corps can carry on its task. In the background of the threat that
looms before the mass movement today, raising such type of powerful, highly
disciplined volunteer corps dedicated to ideology is an essential requisite in
the interest of your movements.

Identify the genuine party of the poor

Discussing one more issue I will conclude my discussion today. What should be
your guiding outlook to decide which is the genuine party of the poor among the
many parties active in our country today — you have to grasp something of it in
your own simple way. For, there are many parties who claim themselves as
communists, who fly the red banner and talk of Marxism-Leninism. Today in fact
there is no scope for going into details of the histories of these pseudo red
flag-waving parties, their day-to-day political manoeuvres and practices, their
base political lines. About these I have discussed elsewhere in plenty, other
leaders of the party have done it too, and our formulated views on these have
already come out in print in many organs and booklets. In this discussion today
I am going to say a few words concerning only one aspect of the conduct of the
leaders and cadres of these parties. I know, not everything will be clear, in
fact it cannot be fully clear from what I am going to say in this regard in my
discussion here. Still then, a brief discussion on these is necessary.

Firstly, if you look at this Birbhum district and judge for yourselves you
can realize who actually did awaken the poor people here — people who were not
regarded as humans, even the other day, rather were despised as subhuman
creatures, the babus dealing with them with a whip hand.

These so-called Marxist parties in our country existed since long before our
party started work and they had been trying as they could to expand their
organizational base under the banner of Krishak Sabha and Krishak Samity, and so
forth. But none of them had so long tried to awaken the agricultural labourers
and poor peasants in the villages by organizing them, nor did they at all try to
build a separate class organization of their own. They are not trying it even
now. Observe closely and you will find that just like the bourgeois parties,
just like the Congress, these sham Marxist parties and socialists rely mainly on
the rich farmers and the well-off middle class babus in matters of organization
in the rural areas. And with the help of these babus they seek to enlist the
rural poor in their respective mass organization and party. It is not difficult
at all to realize the real character of these parties — notwithstanding their
hollow tall talk about class struggle, Marxism-Leninism and socialism — parties
which make no attempt to build the agricultural labourers' and poor peasants'
own, separate class organization, parties which instead talk of drawing
together, irrespective of class character, the rich and well-to-do peasants and
the agricultural labourers, poor and lower-middle peasants in the same
organization — and this in a country where, even at a conservative estimate,
fiftythree to fiftyfive per cent of the rural people are landless peasants and
agricultural laboures, and, with the poor peasants added, the figure comes to
around sixtyeight to seventy per cent.

Although, now, some of these parties sometimes talk of building an
organization of the agricultural labourers' own — this long after our party, the
SUCI built up the Krishak O Khetmajur Federation as a separate class
organization of the agricultural labourers' and poor peasants' own — yet in
practice these parties continue to organize the rich and well-to-do peasants
along with the agricultural labourers and poor peasants in the same organization
in the main, that is, in Krishak Sabha, Krishak Samity and so forth. This goes
to deny the ever-present class struggle in the rural society between the rich
peasants, jotedars and well-off middle peasants, on the one hand, and the
agricultural labourers and poor peasants, on the other hand. And, actually, it
is recourse to class collaboration in the place of leading the class struggle in
the countryside, and this means nothing but sacrificing the interests of the
agricultural labourers, poor and lower-middle peasants at the feet of the rich
and well-off middle peasants. There are of course reasons for this manoeuvre by
these parties. Just study the base political line of these parties and you will
realize that this manoeuvre, no matter the rhetorics, is in perfect agreement
with their base political line. Because, what they advocate — national
democratic revolution or people's democratic revolution — in either case the
rich peasants are considered an ally. So, it is easy to understand that the
party which considers the rich peasants an ally of revolution in the present
situation of our country can never organize genuine class struggles against the
rich peasants. On the other hand, ignoring the vast masses of the agricultural
labourers, poor and lower-middle peasants in the villages, that is, ignoring the
rural proletariat and semi-proletariat, it is not possible for any party to
build rural organizations. So, it is the compulsion of reality which forces
these parties to talk of the agricultural labourers and poor peasants.

The poor who so long had been trodden down with whip hand, all these parties
did not come forward these years to help these poor people rise on their feet
with honour, or build their own, separate class organization on the principle of
class struggle. At present too they are not making any such attempts. It is the
SUCI which for the first time awoke these poor people in the rural areas, helped
them stand on their feet with honour, and built their own class organization in
this district and in different other districts of West Bengal. All of you
present here, know this. In this country it is the SUCI alone which has built
the own, separate organization of the landless peasants, agricultural labourers
and poor and lower middle peasants on the principle of class struggle against
the rich peasants whom we call, in the Marxist-Leninist vocabulary, the rural
bourgeois. This is because, the Indian state is a capitalist state. The national
bourgeoisie here are saddled in state power. Therefore, without overthrowing the
bourgeoisie from the state power, it is not possible to establish here the
workers' and peasants' state, emancipation of the exploited masses is not
possible either. In my discussion I have also shown why those who are owners of
big lands cannot be called today feudal landlords. They are transformed now into
the rural bourgeoisie and they represent the ruling bourgeois in the
countryside. Without waging ceaseless class struggles against them, revolution
cannot be materialized in any way whatsoever. As you know from your own
experience, it is primarily against the rich peasants or jotedars that you have
to conduct your day-to-day struggles in the village — whether for land, for
wage-rise, for the due share of crops, against eviction or against injustice and
oppression of so many kinds. And whenever conflict ensues between you and the
rich farmers or the well-to-do middle peasants and you have no other way than to
organize your resistance movement against their exploitation and the injustice
perpetrated by them, the government and the police force are seen to stand by
these rich farmers and the well-to-do middle peasants against you. To crush your
legitimate movement repression is brought to bear upon you. This in itself goes
to demonstrate that the rich farmers and the well-to-do middle peasants are the
strong base of the bourgeois class rule and exploitation in the countryside. For
this, the police force of the bourgeois government are ever ready to protect
their interests. It is thus the rich farmers or jotedars and the well-to-do
middle peasants — who go against the struggle of the agricultural labourers and
poor peasants and whom you regard as the babu community — they are the class
enemy of yours, that is, of the rural proletariat and semi-proletariat in the
countryside.

If you find a party, although it claims to be Marxist-Leninist or socialist,
building up a peasants' organization in which rich farmers, well-off middle
peasants together with the agricultural labourers, poor and lower-middle
peasants are its members — then whose organization it becomes in reality ? Whose
interests are protected by this organization ? Yours ? Or, the rich peasants' ?
In reality, no class struggle is waged by it against the rich farmers and
well-off middle peasants who are the main pillars of the organization, lest they
turn hostile — only crocodile tears are shed for agricultural labourers,
landless peasants and poor peasants and some empty fire-spitting revolutionary
slogans are mouthed. Observe carefully, you will find that the peasant
organization of each of the parties like the CPI, CPI(M), Socialist Party, has
this character. Now that the poor masses are awakening because of the impact of
the SUCI, these parties are coming to realize that unless they can hold back the
poor people in their fold by any means whatsoever they cannot hope to reap large
dividends in their election-oriented politics. Thus, it is out of concern for
their politics of electoral dividends that they have donned the cloak of the
poor man's friend and are out now to create division among the poor. To hold
both the agricultural labourers and poor peasants back in their organizations
they are howling against the government only, sparing the rich farmers and
well-off middle peasants. In too vague terms they are talking big of revolution.
Keep these words in mind, don't ever miss them.

Free the masses from influence of sham red flag-waving parties

All these parties, who are known in India as communist parties or red
flag-waving parties, are much older than our party. But decadence has set in in
these parties. They are transformed into privileged parties. Just like
everything else of the aristocratic families of our society are melting away,
except for vain attempts to maintain outward grandeur, and just like they have
turned parasites, so also in the sphere of political movements there are some
privileged parties. Under various signboards of the red flag-waving party,
namely, Communist Party, Communist Party (Marxist), Socialist Party, they carry
on activities among the people. The roles these parties play in the communist
movement, in the movements of the workers and peasants in our country, are much
the same as of the aristocratic families I mentioned. All the utterings and
slogans are there alright but for the living soul of revolution and
revolutionary ideology. They are revolutionaries in rhetorics and slogans — and
for that the trickery of keeping their cadres constantly incited in false
militant posture is the only means on which they rely today. Each of them talks
of revolution. But we hardly need to spare many words for them. Watch them
closely and you will discover that the intellect of these sham revolutionaries
is found to be very sharp in the matter of the security and increase of their
personal properties. Of course, as is everywhere, there are a few good workers
among them too. But as for their leaders and the high-ups among most of their
cadres, they are deeply conscious of their personal properties and family
interests. They ensure their interests first and then they come out to do good
to the people. This is how they deceive the masses. Actually, in the name of
revolution, these parties create division among the people and in practice they
are seen to be more enthusiastic about opposing the genuine revolutionary party
than the class enemy. Unless you can free the poor masses from the influence of
these sham revolutionaries, it will not be possible to make gigantic
preparations for leading revolution through to success. So it is your onus to
expose the real character of these parties before the common people and free
them from all confusion.

Remember, this struggle is a great battle. It is no battle of a mercenary
army. It is a revolution, staking everything to save the country from deep
distress, to free industry, agriculture, the rural life, the decadent urban
life, the cultural life of the nation, even science and technical education from
the shackles of capitalist oppression, from its vicious cycle of looting
profits. Today that great onus of revolution devolves upon the workers and the
peasants. Remember, the babus will not achieve this revolution for you. A
handful of them may come to you, imbued with the revolutionary ideology,
abjuring their class interest and at the most try to arouse you to take on the
leadership of the revolution. But this revolution will materialize successfully
only that day when revolutionary cadres and leaders in large numbers, who are
adequately equipped for the party task, will rise from the families of workers
and peasants, and workers and peasants in the towns and villages will get
organized into a steel-strong army under their leadership. Till then you will
stride on with dream in your eyes for the revolution, you will engage in
inconceivable toil to make preparation for the revolution. Till then revolution
will not come forth, it will remain a distant cry. When you will all arise and
in every village you will develop party workers worthy to be leaders equal to
the party task and build powerful party committees, under whose guidance the
poor masses in the villages will march like one soldier, one soul and one body,
inspired by the political revolutionary ideology and together bound in
discipline like an army, and treading the correct revolutionary base political
line, no power on earth can resist revolution in India that day with arms, army
and armoured tanks. Have trust at least in these words of mine.

I conclude my address here today. To all of you, those who are here as
delegates from different districts, who took part in the deliberations, who all
listened to me for this long, I extend my greetings. My red salute to you.

Long Live Krishak O Khetmajur Federation !

Long Live S U C I !

Long Live Revolution. !

Notes

1. KKMF, Organization later changed
its name to All India Krishak O Khetmazur Sangathan (AIKKMS)